North Dakota trying to outlaw most abortions

Well, the extremists in the Republican party keep pushing more and more extreme measures while trying to figure out why people are abandoning the
party. This is a perfect example. I wonder if part of the motive behind this isn't the well publicized population drain in the Great plains. If you
can't attract taxpayers, force people to have more of them?

North Dakota lawmakers who approved what would be some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the U.S. are now considering outlawing all
abortions.

The "personhood" measures would ban abortions by defining human life as beginning with conception. It's drawing opposition from some doctors who say
it could cause problems for infertile couples seeking to use in vitro fertilization to conceive, but supporters insist that's addressed in the
legislation.

The state Senate passed two personhood measures last month, and the House could vote as soon as Tuesday. One of the bills would make the proposal a
state law and another is a resolution that would put the definition into the state constitution, if passed by voters.

North Dakota is one of several states with Republican-controlled Legislatures and GOP governors that is looking at abortion restrictions, but the
state is could go further than any other in challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

Last week, the Legislature sent Gov. Jack Dalrymple what would be two of the most restrictive abortion laws in the U.S., banning abortions as early as
six weeks in a pregnancy and on the basis of genetic defects such as Down syndrome. North Dakota also would be the first to adopt a personhood law if
that measure passes. Abortion-rights activists have vowed to fight the measures in court.

for the love of the monkey gods how can people like this exist equating an abortion to capital punishment is madness.people on this site liberal and
conservative seem to take most supreme court rulings as the law of the land yet these horrible bastards want to make it illegal to get an abortion in
case of rape? roe vs wade is the law of the land if you dont frigging like it challenge it in court and get the supreme court to change its mind(hint
it wont) and what is with the growing number of women trying to control other women's bodies glad i live one state over from this idiots and bible
thumpers

at above commenter can i get a link to that image im a republican but even this pisses me the frak off and figured this could help me in my endevors
to educate people on how this kind of crap cant be tolerated

Until you can sit through some education and pictures and video of an abortion and 'see'with your own eyes, the whole human form sucked out through
the vacuum tubes or cut out of the womb to die in a bucket you are all hypocrites.

But if you have seen them and still think the millions of babies killed every year in the name of 'rights' is ok then your not a hypocrite...just a
very sick person.

...and if your mother had the same choices now, you might not be here!

well for your info my birth mother tired to abort me on her own with a syringe of heroine while she was in labor with me so you would think id be
against abortions but im not because its not my body and im a very firm beliver in following the consitution which with supreme court rulings roe vs
wade is the law of the land if you dont like it try to change it but trying to do end runs around the supreme court is nonsense and a black mark on
the republican party.

you dont like abortions don't frigging have one just like the conservative mantra if you dont want a gun dont buy one but don't affect my ability to
legally have one looks a bit different from that point of view huh?

edit on 19-3-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)

Rape is a horrible crime. It is absolutely devastating," Sitte said. "But do we believe in capital punishment for those children?

quote from
the article to equate abortion(a choice and a right of women) with capital punishment (a PUNISHMENT) just shows how insane some of these people are
made worse so that this legislation is proposed by a woman who would presume to limit the rights of her own gender

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Until you can sit through some education and pictures and video of an abortion and 'see'with your own eyes, the whole human form sucked out through
the vacuum tubes or cut out of the womb to die in a bucket you are all hypocrites.

But if you have seen them and still think the millions of babies killed every year in the name of 'rights' is ok then your not a hypocrite...just a
very sick person.

...and if your mother had the same choices now, you might not be here!

edit on 19-3-2013 by pacifier2012 because: (no reason given)

I've seen those obnoxious pro-life pictures and they do nothing for me. You know why? Because a fetus is not a baby, its not a human, its not a
person. My mother had the choice of an abortion and she chose to keep me. If she didn't I would never know I never existed so its pointless to bring
that up. Take your melodramatics elsewhere. Thanks.

because she was 7 months pregnant and regarless of abortion statutes i cant think of one state that would perform an abortion that late into the term
of the child as most states will not do an abortion past 24 weeks

www.guttmacher.org... but nice try also he was charged with first degee murder for her and 2nd degree murder for
the child

en.wikipedia.org... this is the problem with the supreme court ruling on the matter and it did set the stage for what under
federal guidelines constitutes a legal abortion in general most states will not do abortions past 24 weeks and if memory serves me the max is
somewhere around 5 months max.if they want to institute a law like this they need to get a new ruling on the matter of abortion they have to take it
before the supreme court or in extreme example have a constitutional convention on the matter to add an amendment to the constitution forbidding
abortions

again i say if you dont want an abortion dont have one just like me and other republicans say if you dont want a gun don't buy one. why do people
think they have the right to tell other people what to do with their bodies? i ask any one posting in this forum to rember how they have posted on ats
were you for gun control? or against it were you for the large Sada ban and cigarette taxes or against them? if you answered no to these questions ask
your self if you dont want the government telling you what you can put in your body/and or hands(guns) why the frak do you think you can tell women
what to do with theirs

Haha. Trick question. In the US there is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, so you can catch a murder charge for killing any fetus, regardless of
age. Not really sure why you're trying to find and fit a number, other than show you're willing to make things up.

So clearly the unborn can be afforded legal protection, so the big question why is a mother allowed to terminate the life of her own unborn, but I
can't punch them in the stomach and effectively do the same thing (maybe catch an assault charge for the mom).

I really don't care if people want to abort their kids, I just believe the law needs to be consistent in how it views an object within the framework
of law and it seems that the nonhuman argument ain't true.

Why was Scott Peterson charged and convicted on a double murder when he killed his pregnant wife? Nonhuman, right?

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Uhhh, Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant, at that time the baby has a good chance of surviving outside the womb, thats why he was charged with a
double murder. I think it goes without saying I was referring the the point before 6 months during the period when the baby cannot survive on its own
and abortions are legal.

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal
properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by
statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

if you cant differentiate
between a legal abortion performed by a doctor (as the law stands now) and a murder of a pregnant woman and her own child i feel sorry for you

The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to
human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the
prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on
her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn
child."

so as it doesn't relate to abortion and provides explicted exception for abortions do you wanna try again or do u just wanna admit you
wanna regulate the ability of a woman to decide what to do with her own body?

en.wikipedia.org... as for my imaginary number it vaires by state which i allready stated......but the
federal guideline of abortion being legal limits what they can or can not make illegal

edit on 19-3-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no
reason given)

One aspect of the legal abortion regime now in place has been determining when the fetus is "viable" outside the womb as a measure of when the
"life" of the fetus is its own (and therefore subject to being protected by the state). In the majority opinion delivered by the court in Roe v. Wade,
viability was defined as "potentially able to live outside the woman's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven
months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." When the court ruled in 1973, the then-current medical technology suggested that viability
could occur as early as 24 weeks. Advances over the past three decades have allowed fetuses that are a few weeks less than 24 weeks old to survive
outside the woman's womb. These scientific achievements, while life-saving for premature babies, have made the determination of being "viable"
somewhat more complicated. The youngest child to survive a premature birth in the United States was a girl born at the Baptist Hospital of Miami in
2006 at 21 weeks and 6 days' gestational age.[5]

you were saying?

edit on 19-3-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason
given)

The bill contained the alternate title of Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose
deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004. (see Scott Peterson and Laci
Peterson). Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.

as you wanted to bring up lacy peterson that
fell under california law not federal law

edit on 19-3-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)

and the full text of the law for the benefit of other members

Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children (a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection
(b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place,
is guilty of a separate offense under this section. (2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate
offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that— (i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or (ii) the defendant intended to cause the death
of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child. (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the
unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this
title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. (D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty
shall not be imposed for an offense under this section. (b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following: (1) Sections
36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116,
1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B),
1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this
title. (2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2283). (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an
abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent
is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with
respect to her unborn child. (d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero”
or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

sorry for
long quote but some how i dont think that wiki would care about me quotign such a long quote but if the mods deem this post needs to be edited i ask
them to leave the following out if you want to see the full text of the law go to the link above

well federal law disagrees with you.
i would ask that you not use your personal opinion to spread ignorance of this matter as well as the specific California law you cited like it or not
roe v wade still stands abortion is legal and you will be punished for murder if you kill a pregnant woman and her child you may find it confusing but
the law is the law and you have to live with that weather or not you like it as as it stands abortion is legal and constitutional in the united states

edit on 19-3-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)

and as we have realized the fallacy of the 3/4ths compromise regarding to slaves back in the 1800s we have moved past such ignorant thought processes
doctors can "murder" (as you put it) babies but Donkey(you know what i mean) husbands cant kill their pregnant wives i don't see a problem with this
and i cant fathom why you would think such ignorant things unless you try to take your logic from musty old religious texts that do nothing but divide
us as species and serve to further subjugate the females of America to the level of things to get pregnant and to be seen and not heard like they were
in the dark days. let me guess your one of those sick individuals who thinks rape victims and victims of incest are suposed to carry their violators
children to term?

federal laws on abortion trump state laws on abortion thats kind of my point......either way the supreme court will strike down this unconstitutional
law just like Illinois and DC's hand gun bans

and i have a problem because your willfully trying to spread ignorace as the orginal law you cited in your first poist in this thread asked the
question of why was scot peterson charged with murder for the death of his wife and unborn child as compared to a legitimate and legal abortion has
the exception that those who perform abortions will not be charged with killing an unborn child i still dont see why you cant fathom how wrong exactly
you are and more so the fact that you cant see how this conficts with federal law and places an unfair burden on women who want to have an abortion
astounds me

edit on 19-3-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)

North Dakota lawmakers are considering several bills this session that would restrict abortion. Dahl said that the legislation would ultimately
impact medical care to women and families and allow no exceptions for rape or incest. "A woman who has been sexually assaulted will be forced to
carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of the nature of her assault," she said.

this is why i have a problem with it

edit on 19-3-2013 by
RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)

it would be interesting to see if your view changed if your wife/gf was raped and impregnated with the rapists baby that you then legally would be
required to raise and take care of for the entirely of its life tell its 18 so unless your willing to happily raise the baby of the person who raped
the person you may or may not be involved with i would appreciate it if you would stop trying to restrict the rights of women to decide what to do
with their own bodies

well again weather you like it or not abortion is legal and is the law of the land and laws outlawing abortion or unreasonably restricting them are
illegal and unconstitutional why do you want unwanted children to be brought into this world? why do you want women who were raped to have to raise
the baby of their rapists often but not always leading to rapists getting custody or visitation rights? why are you for women who were molested by
family members having to carry a baby to term that constantly reminds them of the traumatic event that happend to them? why do you want children in
this world that cant be taken care of and cared for brought into this world? and for the love of Hanuman(the monkey gods) why cant you see why your
ignorance is so astounding it makes my head hurt?you don't like people getting abortions petition the states to call a constitutional convention to
make abortion illegal. or repeal roe vs wade. why do you think you know better then women what to do with their own bodies?

A U.S. district judge has overturned Idaho's so-called "fetal pain" law, a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Citing Roe v. Wade,
Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote that "the state may not rely on its interest in the potential life of the fetus to place a substantial obstacle to
abortion before viability in women's paths." The so-called "fetal-pain" law attempts to stop abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which a fetus
reportedly begins to feel pain. Lawyers for plaintiff Jennie Linn McCormack argued that the law unjustly punishes women.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.